Category: Political Philosophy

Look, I don’t have the time or inclination to point-out the half-baked thinking of MR’s commentators or interviewed guests (if I think them to be in error). Kevin MacDonald can defend himself can he not? After all, if his ideas are completely robust how can he be subject to a ‘humiliation’? All ideas, political, philosophical and scientific, have to be stress-tested in order to investigate their validity. Why anyone is so much of a ‘special snowflake’ that they get an a priori exemption from this process is beyond me.

Now, no-one that’s sane thinks the individual per se can or should be ‘abolished’, but people have very odd and damaging ideas about what ‘the individual’ is and what it represents - such that over the longer term the ideology of ‘individualism’ has extremely deleterious effects as its model of reality is not in alignment with the true social ontology. Human beings, including Europeans, evolved in small, highly social/group orientated bands. It’s really not rocket science to understand that variation in fitness is partitioned into a group element and an individual element (whilst obviously selecting for or against specific alleles and associated phenotypic traits). In fact, such an observation mathematically and logically flows from basic population genetics, which Hamilton went on to describe as ‘inclusive fitness’ and the importance of relatedness to the evolution of behaviour and life history traits (like female biased sex-ratios in the Hymenoptera etc). Price simplified inclusive fitness theory with his work. And it’s developed since. Steven Frank’s book on social evolution is still the best starting point for anyone seriously interested in the topic.

Returning to the politics and philosophy parts of the discussion, Aristotle is my favourite thinker in these areas. First of all, he would suggest that a proper balance between the ‘parts’ and the ‘whole’ (individuals and the group) is necessary for both to fully flourish. There is a mutual interdependence and reciprocity between the two levels of social reality. Secondly, Aristotle would suggest that there may be many ways to live (like being a Lockean liberal perhaps), but many ways to live are ultimately sub- optimal with the goal of full and genuine human flourishing. And this is true at both the individual level and the group level. And yes the interests of a given individual and a given group can be conflict (again this flows from very basic evolutionary biology and the game-theoretic issue of ‘free-riders’). Thus there must be mechanisms for maintaining the health of both individuals and the collective. It starts by the recognition of the fact that the individual is social and utterly dependent upon the collective in numerous ways that liberal ‘individualistic’ ideology willfully ignores.

Ultimately, I reject liberalism as a set of false ideas about the human world - it has the ontology of humans both as individuals and as communities wrong. Bad ideas eventually result in bad consequences and one hopes vice versa. Thus, I am broadly an Aristotelian communitarian. And I think that must incorporate the realities of human nature (groupishness) and our bio-cultural differential status regarding different groups of human beings. Note, it’s a political axis of differences (bio-cultural) that ultimately ends up in the Schmittian friend-enemy distinction, not some bullshit about equality vs inequalities except that I very naturally value my own well being and life more highly than a random stranger’s and I also value the life of my extended community both today and tomorrow (the idea of an intergenerational ‘moral economy’).

Being a non-liberal, I am against cheap all-encompassing forms of universalism or the moral plateau as philosophers call it. Rather I believe in a nested hierarchy of moral responsibility. I have much more moral duties to my own children than my next door neighbour’s kids, let alone some family in China (that of course does not imply I, by default, hate people in China or wish them harm just that I feel I have minimal moral responsibilities towards them). But I do have some properly warranted moral responsibilities to my neighbourhood and my community. Moral responsibility varies with proximity (properly understood).

Roger Scruton writes about a hierarchy of moral responsibility often. Here he speaks about in the context of the absurd (and liberal) idea of ‘animal rights.’

OK, I have previously attempted on many occasions to write about and explain my thoughts on topics such as societal homogeneity and social capital etc. I will not endlessly repeat myself.

As for the idiotic, paranoid reaction by some to my reappearance, it was simply a function of me taking a quick look at MR in a quite moment and seeing folks speculation about my death! And I posted some chucks from an essay I had been reading. I am starting to get to grips with using a tablet and MR as a site isn’t the easiest to use; so out of laziness I didn’t put the comments in quotation marks. Only when someone posted them to the front page as my own did I feel duty-bound to privately point out that fact. But they are still good points of which I agree in about 90%.

No coordination with Danny or GW etc. Seeing a conspiracy at every turn is how Jews think - they project onto others their own deeply ingrained mindset. It’s both pathetic and undignified to follow that way of thinking quite so slavishly.

Speaking of slaves, can anyone seriously doubt the USA is a vassal state of Israel? The best superpower money can buy? And yet Americans still persist in their hurbris that they are the model Europeans ‘must’ follow? Look, if KM or indeed anyone else is pushing that as some sort of ‘idea’ they can go fuck themselves. Savvy?

If Mr. Bowery wishes to contribute to MR go for it. Who the fuck cares either way?

I think this is rather pithy - A Word in the Ear of the Future-Seekers — Modernity is not the bridge; it is the abyss.

Fine Persecution — Every society has before it an ideal of the kind of society it ought to be, and every society, in order to uphold that ideal, needs to persecute those within it who are at odds with that ideal. Once again, however, the deep mendacity of liberalistic society manifests itself in that it denies the persecution which it carries out against its hated enemies, namely, those at odds with its ideal. This denial of the persecuted status of its enemies — along with the ridicule of them when they claim it — are additional elements for the intensifying of their persecution.

Specify, or Be Damned — Individualism does not specify itself to be in keeping with any particular society, or even with the existence of society at all, but rather it addresses itself only to an unspecified individuality. Such unspecification about what an individual should be is precisely at the heart of individualism’s boast about its being the friend and not the foe of the individual’s freely seeking to be and to do whatever he chooses. “Do what thou wilt”, it says, whereto it may add the black-box phrase, “so long as it harms none”. Now, given a teaching which says that everyone may do as he pleases, irrespective of all truth, reason, goodness, morality, tradition, authority, obedience, bonds, and so forth, “so long as it harms none”, and which, by its boasted lights, does not specify the kind of society which should be upheld, or even that any should be upheld, how is it that anyone could then come to the belief that it might after all stand as a pillar of any society, let alone a particular one, rather than being, as in truth it is, the rot upon all? One might say that here we are at the brink of sheer madness, inbequeathed through many years of listening to silly tales. But leaving aside an understanding of the teaching itself, which might conceivably have taken any name, the very name which it does carry gives us a clue to its drift, namely, that it seeks to uphold the unspecified individual, and not any society, specified or unspecified.

There are no ends specific to man as man, rather than to what he shares with mere beasts, which can be reached outside of his fellowship with his kind. No speech nor reasoning, let alone higher arts and sciences, would arise if all men stood from the first outside of fellowship. Every man began as a helpless baby and would have died were it not for the society of his kith and kin. Every man was without speech, and would have remained speechless were it not for the same. Every man was without schooling, and would have stayed unschooled. And so on. No man was ever born into a so-called state of nature, as first imagined by Thomas Hobbes, even if this be helpful as a conceptual threshold for the understanding that the closer a society comes in breaking down towards that threshold, the more brutish it becomes. It is nevertheless a figment which has led to misunderstanding and mischief, and it is from it that individualism has grown. Man’s state of nature is the state of society. Man has never been in the so-called state of nature; for he is by nature a social animal and has always been in fellowship. Individualists, having thoughtlessly taken all social things for granted, and having for the most part imbibed unawares some old spirit of seventeenth-century philosophy, often speak as though they rose out of the ground and shaped themselves in isolation, wherein we glimpse also the drunken idea of self-creation born of Romanticism.

But he who is unable to live in society, or who has no need because he is sufficient for himself, must be either a beast or a god: he is no part of a state. [1]

The liberal concept of man as selfstanding being, free to set his own moral ends, is one of the biggest untruths ever told — and yet folk swallow it whole, whereat we might take it that they are greedy for something.

Individualism is an emptiness which blights the field of personhood, turning men, if they can still be called such, into mere units of the mass to be gathered up in the total state. Man is a social animal; society is required to actualise a man’s potential as a person. There are no pre-social individual persons. In the light of this, we may see individualism as some deeply primitive recrudescence, the tendency of which is to destroy the very conditions by which one can become a human person. A man cannot be a person without the fellowship, community, or society that made him. Unsocialised, man’s potencies are not activated, and he stays at a level close to a beast, bereft of speech and reason, let alone partaking of the higher arts and sciences.

Individualistic societies are decomposing social bodies in which kinship-ties are loosened and even cut, and which can be held together only by an all-pervasive and socially-alien bureau-technocratic power — the “coldest of all cold monsters”. In defence of these societies, and, by extension, willing or not, of this bureau-technocratic power, liberals, who sometimes call themselves libertarians, claim the greater freedom of these societies, where the largely unexamined and fuzzily-held concept “freedom” is a multivariate reference, unspecified of what, for what, and to what. In individualistic societies there is more freedom in the direction of baser and thrilling appetites, non-specific to mankind, hence the appeal of this freedom to the mass of baser men; and it is these appetites which dissolve kinship and personhood, bringing even greater demands for individualism, which brings greater freedom in the direction of baser and thrilling appetites, and so on, in a downward spiral. In individual -istic societies, the freedom in personhood is much lowered, whilst the freedom in beasthood is heightened; and the bonds of kinship are cut whereby men would be men.

Liberals and libertarians, being the fiercest enemies of the freedom of personhood, and the strongest friends of the freedom of beasthood, that is to say, of the liberal haze-ideal of the “individual” whatever that individual may be, must be defeated if the freedom of the person as person is to be upheld. Liberalism, or rather its essential individualism, has a gut-feeling and a canny nose for the breaking-up of everything, even of the person, and it knows nothing of creation. The ideal of individualism can only belittle persons and bring to the fore a bulk of fittingly-blank individuals of the mass — fittingly blank for bearing the stamp of the bureau-technocratic regime.

The conformity that is forged today through the atomized individualism that strips men of their personhood has little to do with the collective identity for which men have always yearned. The conformity today is stopgap and takeover of this natural yearning. The atomised individual is stripped bare of his humanity —which has hitherto been actualised in society —and left adrift with his “freely-formed” and “chosen” opinions, which are in truth nothing of the kind. He cannot think for himself, only of himself, as he is suffering a loss. He rebels against conformity in conformity with everyone else.
As the subversive mind is essentially individualistic and isolationistic, so is it essentially collectivistic and identitarian: on the view inherent in it, the curse of division and of being ‘set against one another’ cannot be surmounted except by a ‘fusion into one’; an actual identification of consciousness, of qualities and of interest. In fact, individualism (tending towards egalitarianism) prefigures collectivism from the outset, and again, collectivism is only individualism raised to the high power of an absolute monism centered in ‘all and every one’. [2]

Individualism foreshadows mass-collectivism and the herd of ersatz ‘individuals’. With authorities and societies broken down, nothing stands in the way of pressing individual units of alienated humanity, hitherto existing as persons, into a mass, each homogen- ised unit shaped to fit and imprinted with a set of political ideas and economic desires.

The pluralism which accompanies individualism is a social dysfunction built on subject- ivistic-irrationalistic ethics. It denies that mankind has a nature and thereby a natural end to be fulfilled. Only by that denial does it make sense to say that everyone has a right to pursue any goals and practice any values which he pleases so long as he does not seek to foist them upon others. And how is that disorder to be managed? Why, by the totalitarian bureau-technocratic state of liberaldom! But of course it is not true that under liberaldom one can believe whatever one likes, nor especially what’s rational to believe. In liberaldom one can believe anything one likes so long as it makes no odds against liberaldom; one’s unliberal beliefs, if they can still bear that name, are to be mild quirks of the self, slight hues in an otherwise grey smear of bureaucratic massification.

The task of liberalism from its beginning, namely, the search for neutral ground whereon the life of all mankind can rest, and whereupon everyone can seek his own ends, can find its end only in a true neutrality and indifference, and that is nowhere to be found in man except in his unpersonhood. Wherefore it is that liberalism’s struggle to settle the life of mankind can find its end only in the death of personhood; and it is for this reason that the struggle against liberalism is the final and most profound one. Liberalism is the greatest evil that mankind has yet faced, and there is almost no-one to withstand it. That lack of withstanding, owed to liberalism’s having swayed almost everyone to its side, is partly why it is the greatest evil.

On the radio page now, Greg Johnson, editor of Counter-Currents Publishing, talks to GW and Daniel about the crisis confronting our race, about liberalism and modernity, and about Martin Heidegger, his revolutionary 1927 opus Being and Time..
..and its meaning and utility for identitarians in the liberal age.

Toward a relative social and less sheerly objective view of our peoples
– i.e., in terms of our interests. 2,450 words

For those intelligent minds inquiring without the better of academia’s time tested structures in the humanities, but only proceeding of their will to make their way through erudition from their standpoint, their penchant in Western advocacy would have us return to modernity (were it possible) and objectivism.

To the academically inexperienced and untrained advocate of Western interests there are two grand disadvantages.

First, he is not appraised of the sublime workings and analyses of these scholarly apparati as they might be applied in our interests; and secondly, what he does know and hear about them tends to be vast perversions of the notions as passed through Jewish academia and media.

The well meaning Westerner thus sets about to cure us of all this hogwash, and would unbeknownst return us to obsolete tenets of modernity and objectivism - precursors to the very afflictions to our homeostasis that he seeks to cure, such as liberalism.

To him, “objectivism” is good. “Relativism” is bad.

He does not sufficiently appreciate that the analytic framework of objectivism, relativism and subjectivism is not inherently antagonistic to Western interests. The same would apply to a myriad of terms and concepts that have been misapplied against European interests and rather stupidly taken by White Nationalists as such - inherently bad or wrong. It is a temptation and an easy mistake, but a bad mistake – as these are deliberate traps set against European interests unbeknownst to those without a privileged vantage on the working of Jewish academics over these scholarly apparati.

Let me address just objectivism and relativism briefly.

Critique of objectivism ranges from what would correctly be seen as the most brazen and vulgar Jewish sophistry to the most sublime calculations of Heisenberg or Gödel.

However, when I critique objectivism it will tend to be heard by those outside of the academic humanities as if I am disposing of the framework which has yielded such fantastic scientific advances in its entirety, as if I am a Jew looking to make rhetorical tropes the king.

The truth is that there are limits and very real problems for us as a people in the pursuit of mere objectivism. It is among the central elements of our problems.

Plato being granted some permission by Christianity, thus having gravity in our traditions, will incline many to see in this argument a stupid straw man that all is relative. That I am promoting sheer sophistry and relativism. Not. In fact, hyper-relativism is an upshot of objectivism.

On the other hand, there is an aspect of rhetoric called casuistry which has also gotten a bad name from Jewish misuse. However, casuistry proper would take into account the sublime limitation of objectivism, taking the facts yielded by its experience and inquiry indeed BUT then making the best argument that it can on the basis of those facts in conjunction with one’s interests inherently social as they are. There is no denial of facts but a prioritizing of them as they accord to human concern. That is right.

While defending our ghetto square and the merits of strengthening our grass roots community by preaching there to its choir, deepening our understanding and resolve, it seems that at this point Majority Rights could also do well with forays to visit those down some side streets - to pursue interviews not only with those who are most aligned with our views, but also to follow a path of those who might be slightly off - i.e. slightly antagonistic to our views in a somewhat liberal direction, at least explicitly, while having some implicit sympathy through connection to our square, our cause; such that MR’s platform might bring-out that connection with their underlying fairness in concern for our people and our kinds. The more public, known or respectable the person, perhaps the better. They might come to us with an intent to criticize us or save face in cover inasmuch – fine. Perhaps we can stand corrected. That’s not so much the problem as coming-up with good candidates for this kind of discussion/debate, those who may be lurking in what are the shadowy side-streets for us. Therefore the reason for this post is to ask for suggestions as to fairly prominent/respectable liberals, etc. Those fairly askance of our views, but not so antagonistic as to be futile to hope to engage. Rather to pursue those who might be ripe to debate GW or another MR representative, to at least hear-us-out. We might see where the dimly lit path takes us…

While distinguishing characteristics of Europeans may be the relative independence of mature individuals, sovereignty, self sufficience, autonomy and agency, can anybody really doubt that we are socially created and dependent upon cooperation to some extent and somewhere along the line? Lets not be absurd and value individualism so much as to lose its source.

As European peoples, the connections of our social systemic interdependence are protracted and delicate but as such, allow for their creative organization, coordination and the negotiation of win-win scenarios.

If both individual and our whole people are to be valued then in our separatist concern, let us finally share a narrative that honors those who harmonize our people while demonstrating effectiveness in removing interlopers and imposers upon our E.G.I.

For our tenuous but necessary social connectedness is also what allows these patterns of connection to be disrupted by hostile outsiders and the selfish, short-sighted and exploitative of our own - whether less than ordinary folks or elite.

Ayn Rand compared what she said were the “Sex, Drugs and Rock n’ Roll values - ‘the hippie motives’ on display at Woodstock” to

The Apollo 11 project, which had legions of well behaved admirers who descended upon Cape Canaveral to observe its event.

Now, if we couldn’t expect hippies, not even John Lennon, to be articulate of what was important about the hippie motive how can we expect Don Black and right wing cohorts to be articulate of their motives?

Don says Timothy Leary was the poster hippie boy with the emblematic phrase, “tune in turn on and drop out.” Not exactly.

And his colleague, “Don Advo,” preferred Ayn Rand’s take on hippies in “Apollo and Dionysus,” disparaging hippies by contrast to achieving technocrats, viz. contrasting the Apollo astronauts and witnesses to the Dionysian Woodstock performers and crowd.

But whereas Any Rand’s individualist objectivism was motivated to rupture the communality and other organization of European peoples by contrasting it with “heroic” but disingenuous individualism, the hippies did have a very important motive which is continually skirted-over by those who ignore the background of The Vietnam War Draft.

In rebellion against the draft, hippies were there at Woodstock, singing..

“Well, come on all of you, big strong men, Uncle Sam needs your help again. Yeah, he’s got himself in a terrible jam way down yonder in Vietnam. So put down your books and pick up a gun, gonna have a whole lotta fun.. and its one, two, three…

Their fundamental project was very significant in the advance of European peoples - a quest for midt-dasein - communal being amidst the class of one’s people for White males - as opposed to having those basic levels on the hierarchy of needs sacrificed by males in deprivation and privation; where a few males might make it through the stress to the higher reaches (often transformed into sociopaths for the effort), to the higher aims on the hierarchy of needs - e.g., exploring the moon. To where in fact, these traditional trade-offs in gender differentiation were exploited and exaggerated beyond reason.

Sacrificial White males on the way, as in Vietnam, no matter how needless, be damned.

The point is, these motives/needs should not and ultimately, in fact, cannot be mutually exclusive, but must be balanced in optimality. The hippies were not protesting the Apollo landing. They reasonably sought organicism and being in balance to technology. However, they might upset a Jew like Ayn Rand because they were insisting that the intrinsic value of White men - White male midt-dasein - be recognized, in fact its institution was/is a necessary priority.

But the hippies were inarticulate of that motive. Moreover, requisite to their motive of midtdasein was “racism” * - i.e., social classification and necessary discrimination thereof, duty when mature to guard the boundaries thereof - there is no being in one’s group without discriminating against its antagonists - ironically prohibited with the newly mis-coined “civil rights” making such requisite discrimination into a veritable taboo and largely illegal in fact. Needless to say that was hard to articulate at the time as it is still now. Midtdasein’s articulation was made yet harder by the fact that it could easily be emasculated against the traditional role/motive for males to quest after the top of the hierarchy and man-up in sacrificing the basic needs of the hierarchy. Furthermore, turning back from actualizing the top of the hierarchy apparently belied the whole American project as the “land of opportunity.” Indeed, White males would not necessarily want to sacrifice the possibility for the top of the hierarchy either. Nor would they want to sacrifice the middle - relationships with co-evolutionary women:

Still, we hear how hedonistic and bad these people were by people who want to blame White men and associate them with Jewish affectations of the era.

Articulating the motive of White male midtdasein was further complicated by its incommensurability and confusion with Jewish interests and right-wing interests - who sought to associate it with the Jewish radical agenda of Marxism: expressed as imposed liberalism for Whites but by contrast to that relaxation of vigilance, a unionized activism for non-Whites against Whites - the prim “civil rights” and upwardly black power totally incommensurate with White male midtdasein. As was Marcuse’s “free love and “poly- morphous perversion” incommensurate with White male midtdasein, especially as bounds of accountability and human ecology were ruptured as “violation of ‘civil rights”

The second wave of feminism, another thing wrongly correlated with hippies, was also in fact incommensurate, quite literally incommensurate with White male midtdasein.

In fact, it was the thesis of Betty Friedan, leading exponent of that second wave of feminism, that in order to be healthy, full and free, women needed access to the higher levels of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.

It is apparent how the “high grumbles” which Maslow called higher needs on the hierarchy, and as feminists who followed Friedan’s thesis would espouse, could cause extreme friction between White women and White men, who had the “low grumbles” of not wanting to be treated as being so intrinsically valueless as to have to be subject to a draft and die in a senseless foreign war of aggression; and rather than being left alone in peace, being amidst the class of their people, were subject in still further violation thereof - violation of their freedom from association with outsiders as imposed by “civil rights” - violation of freedom from association, violation of midtdasein - taking away the most basic freedom of White men.

Of course Ayn Rand did not like Hippies, they were motioning to group, communal organization of Whites and care that included White male being as an intrinsic value - god forbid they would heal in organic and communal being, to be anything but sheer individuals who would stand no chance against her tribe’s hegemony and impositions.

Sometime back a fellow calling himself Lonejack agreed with my assessment:

Agree.

As a VN vet, I can attest to most of what you say. The effects of the VN-era conscription – that is, having been forced into slave-soldiering in a non-White country’s civil war orchestrated by bankers and corporations, having absolutely nothing to do with the actual defense of a White homeland, and calculatingly prosecuted by LBJ and his Ivy League YKW intelligentsia with absolutely no intent of military victory – reverberate to this day among the White guys who were in our late teens and early twenties during the 60’s, more than 50 thousand of whom died in combat, many of whom were captured and tortured, and hundreds of thousands of whom returned maimed, grossly disfigured, and/or dysfunctional only to be vilified, upon their return, by many elements of the society which sent them.

When I returned from overseas, my drop-out from family and society into the flower-child milieu had little to do with civil rights or free love. BTW I do not begrudge those who emigrated to Canada to avoid the draft. And, for those interested, the works of author Tim O’Brien, who “served” an extended “tour of duty” as an infantryman in SVN, are richly descriptive, compelling, and well written IMO.

Commenters on this site (Alt Right) and in other threads who incessantly demand the boomers to go fuck or shoot themselves, while they themselves consider employment with the Navy, CIA, SS, or some other corrupt, terrorist, anti-White ZOG organ of the NWO agenda – as though such employment would be anything more than a convenient way to escape a tough job market – do, I confess, grate. Why on earth would they willingly collaborate with evil, when alternatives, difficult though they be, are available?

I’m waiting to hear or read what’s not to like about this guy. Though I reserve the right to change my mind, and admit that I am not disposed and have not been looking far and wide for what not to like about him, from what I have heard (some interviews and some text), so far he seems alright.

Greg Johnson criticizes him for wasting his time, but I don’t see where Ransdell has said that standard political channels were the only means that he would ever seek - and it is clearly only a strategy to get heard. Moreover, he is also explicit in not recommending or insisting upon this strategy for everyone and all places.

Ok, he is associated with VNN and Stormfront, inspired by Rockwell and to a lesser extent by Pierce, and there may be (probably is) some guilt by association with them and other opinions on those discussion forums, but so far, from what I have heard, he himself has not said anything that I find objectionable. It would be interesting to hear what MR readers think.

A blog comment by Enza Ferreri prompts some thoughts on Vico. Of course I do not place comfort or credence in all of Vico’s ideas - unlike Johnson, I particularly do not find this comforting: “The idea of history going through the same stages over and over again.” Even so, I do respect Vico as the first prominent anti-Cartesian philosopher; who saw that an anti-modernist, turning and reconstructing process was implied by non-Cartesianism. However, I take a more hopeful view that we are not so determined to repeat unpleasantries - rather, we are free to act, at least having some alternative range of functional autonomy and agency to repeat healthy practices and forms of the past, while moving on and advancing to new ways where we are the better for it.

In any event, as he was the first major challenge to Cartesianism, and frequently cited as a forefather of social constructionism proper, I have long treated Vico as pivotal to sound philosophical underpinning of White/European nationalism - this article to note:

WN may be finally catching-on to these correctives of typical right-wing errors.

Greg Johnson gave a speech on Vico at the recent London Forum. In anticipation, I have already invited him to speak with G.W. or James about this in an M.R. podcast, should any party be willing. As for Enza, she can come visit my town anytime she likes..

Vico is a 17th-18th century philosopher from Naples. Most Italians know of him and his theory of the “corsi e ricorsi storici”, or the cyclical nature of history. But he’s little known in the Anglo-Saxon world, despite having had some influence, especially on James Joyce’s books. Vico’s Scienza nuova (“New Science”) is the basis for Finnegans Wake.

The idea of history going through the same stages over and over again is very far from the contemporary view of history as progress. Vico, according to Johnson, was exceptional, in that he was the first anti-Enlightenment thinker and the only one of his time, despite being himself an Enlightenment thinker in some ways.

Vico postulated a fundamental law of historical development, that follows the same pattern by evolving through three phases: the age of gods, “during which gentile [meaning “pagan”] men believed that they were living under divine rule”; the age of heroes, when aristocratic republics were established; and the age of men, or what we may call “democracy”, “when all were recognised as equal in human nature”. Here Vico is a son of his “Enlightened” times, when he talks of the necessity to respect “natural reason” and of “the human rights dictated by human reason when fully explored”.

At that point man’s increased powers of reasoning result in a state of anarchy, when everybody considers himself his own ruler and only looks after his own pleasure and short-term interest. Sounds familiar? It must do, because it’s a fairly accurate description of what we are going through now, a description which will become even more faithful as decades, nay years, nay months go by.

Then men get tired of that anarchy and “turn again to the primitive simplicity of the early world of peoples”, and to religion. Thus the cycle starts again.

The beauty of it all, said Johnson, is that Vico’s view of history enables us to stop trying to mend the present state of affairs, which is beyond repair, and instead look forward to - even accelerate - its end, which will usher a new era.

Or I would put it as “the darkest hour is just before the dawn”.

Johnson concluded his speech by saying that, whereas Giorgio Almirante, the leader of the Right-wing Italian party Movemento Sociale Italiano, said, “Julius Evola is our Marcuse, only better”, we can say that Vico is our Karl Marx, only better.

While we are (in 299 words) addressing David Duke and his single greatest cause issue - Jewish power and influence - with his admonition against their strategy of divide-and-conquer, we should ask..

Is it not possible that our traitorous White plutocrats would be happy to have us fight a war against that which is also their greatest enemy - Jewish power and biocultural patterns - and use us as cannon fodder?

What, after all, have they done for us?

What have they done to merit our loyalty?

What have they done to fight Jewish power and influence? mass non-White immigration into European peoples’ habitats? the destruction of European cultures and people?

Fratricidal tendency, boding against race as a practical organizational concept, issues one of the most significant challenges to advocates of people of native European descent.

3,566 words

Subtitle: Graham’s shirked paternal responsibility in that regard.

To intervene and ameliorate fraternal relations, perhaps, or to argue more thoroughly as to why race is not the proper group membership concern.

Needless to say, betrayal by those close to us is among the hardest challenges to cope with in life, and the most de-motivating of defending E.G.I.

It is prima facie an acute issue to deal with and one that would require some of our top guns to handle properly - the likes of Dr. Lister and Frank Salter. Their help and more, of course, is needed in addressing this matter which we have all felt too closely to handle rationally by ourselves. What I mean by “fratricidal tendencies” is something quite general - antagonism of those closely related, ranging from irresponsible negligence to literal fratricide and war between our closely kindred people.

As we are so invested and investing in these people, the pursuit of remedy to these conflicts has created our most painful and destructive moments, where we did and gave our best to people who betrayed us - we became enemies to ourselves.

Calabritto, where Samnites holed-up after pilfering the Roman legions, the valley below where Spartacus led his uprising of slave forces against Rome.

3,228 words

Post Modernity, properly defined, serves the purpose of acknowledging and delimiting the negative implications of Modernity. That is why the Post Modern concept was developed - to establish limits on the epoch, the project, the otherwise runaway logics of meaning and action of Modernity.

As such, Post Modernity puts a halt to the impervious linearity of Modernity, which has a propensity to run rough-shod and rupture our biological systems, ways and boundaries; but as Post Modernity prompts the employment of judgment in the hermeneutic turn - with engaged, circular process of inquiry from larger to smaller units of analysis - it can use that judgment to reconstruct traditional European forms and ways; and it can also make use of the positive aspects of Modernity’s logics of meaning and action (also characteristically European), as well.

Modernity having good and bad properties for the reconstruction and growth of a people and Post Modernity as a way of managing its two sides are thus important conceptual tools for us to maintain. Nevertheless, and although Modernity has a good and a bad side, it is the bad side that is especially important for us to maintain sight-of, for its propensities to wreck us in impervious liberalization and unaccountably obliterate our “borders” - the concept of Modernity unchecked in that regard is one of our greatest concerns.

Modernity is a quest and world view stemming from western traditions of objectivity and pursuit of universal, foundational truths. It has been the most determinedly evangelical and far reaching world view that the world has ever known. While continually putting ethnic resources at risk, its pursuit has nevertheless gained consensus by yielding fantastic results of technology, scientific insight and more; translating politically in the unburdening, simplifying belief that freedom, liberalism and universal rights will progress toward foundational truths; casualties and destruction on the way are cast aside as an experimentally necessary hazard.

Given its pervasive influence and its taken for grantedness by people in general, as facticitous, “the way it is”, it is especially important to understand its logics of meaning and action correctly, including how Jewish interests, and others unconcerned for European interests, would play Modernity’s “objectivity” and other properties (e.g., passivity, as in “the suicide” meme) against us.

It is also important thus to understand how Jewish interests in particular, would distort the concept of Post Modernity, to where most people would apprehend its concern to be some sort of obfuscating Marxist ruse, a shallow “dada” movement for varieties of trivial indulgence, if not hyper-relative, polymorphous decadence.

On the contrary, Post Modernity as a project is one which corresponds with the most serious issues of reconstructing our people, literally, and maintaining them.

Moreover, because Post Modernity can view both sides of Modernity, it can allow us to not only foster but to further our people, using its positive side, where we should, without losing our characteristic forms.

The negotiative logics of Post Modernity, properly understood and managed, can allow peoples to manage and reconstruct traditional practices and time immemorial forms while availing themselves of Modernity where its “change”, “progress”, “innovation” etc., is advisable.

However, it is for its enormous power, its propensity for vast and universal reach, its impervious objectivity, its non-accountability, its obliviousness to boundaries and borders, its destruction as opposed to maintenance and reconstruction of our cultures /peoples, that accurate understanding of the pejorative side inherent in the logics of meaning and action of Modernity is most important to maintain a conceptual bead-on.

“There is no psychological immune deficiency. MacDonald made a mistake. He is a psychologist, not a philosopher. He looked in the structure of the mind for what exists in its thought. Those who have internalised it and speak from it are not to blame for their suggestibility. But nothing useful can come of a mistaken beginning.”

Posted by Guessedworker on May 06, 2014, 02:27 AM | #

“Incidentally, how does this crazed universalism of the European Mind square with the evidence for implicit racism?”

For those who might be put-off, initially or even ultimately, by the subject matter discussed here, I would refer to that old adage, that “if all you know well is one thing, then you really don’t even know that very well.”

Part 3 of the analysis of

John Shotter’s “Social Accountability and the Social Construction of ‘You”

If we affirm one moment, we thus affirm not only ourselves but all existence. For nothing is self-sufficient, neither in us ourselves nor in things; and if our soul has trembled with happiness and sounded like a harp string just once, all eternity was needed to produce this one event - and in this single moment of affirmation all eternity was called good, redeemed, justified, and affirmed.

I do not know the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche well, and have not read a single one of his published works from cover to cover for the best part of forty years. I do know there is a grand vision of human meaning and a narrow one of human freedom, and there is rampant purposivity as well as progressivism, and naturalism but also anti-Darwinism. There is anti-socialism, anti-militarism, anti-democratism, anti-statism in parts. There is much more than the vulgar moral framework of “god-killing” and “aristocratic radicalism”. For example, there is life affirmation. If someone asked me for an interpretation of the above quote, without telling me that it is from The Will to Power, I would say that it is about emotion in human presence and its positive perspective on the lost life that went before. Read in that way, the first and last thoughts, especially, are possessed of the same sublimity and make the same tangential approach to Truth as any metaphysical fragment in Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. It is hard to believe that someone could write in that way without knowing everything. And yet, for most thinking nationalists he might as well have never conceived of more than the “higher man” and the teleology of greatness, the life lived for glory, the life of Homo heroicas.

True Belarusian nationalism and its history have been opaque to westerners. The process of its true nationalism becoming opaque along with its struggle for revival may be instructive - and particularly if successful, useful for purposes of WN cooperation.

Still, “Western values” may creep-in through lack of bounds South and East as well..

It is a particularly important preliminary note that there is virtually nobody here who had anything to do with events of World War II. That fact is most relevant. Under that rubric, let us begin:

Hitler and Nazism as an overstated premise in representation of White/European nationalism; and Hitler and Nazism or the international Jew as false either/or.

Method:

Working hypotheses will be advanced

as to why these logical fallacies are being adopted despite their apparent obviousness;

how they are mistaken;

and remedies will be proposed in cooperative nationalism.

Statements will be set out as hypotheses to allow for efficient positioning of historical viewpoints as they emerge practical in argumentative service of cooperative European nationalism. In addition to the practical efficiency of hypotheses for unburdening detail, the modesty of unfinished claims is meant to facilitate participation from the commentariat to elaborate, correct and amend the hypotheses - i.e., to make optimal use of Majority Rights discussion format.

* Note: in comment number 2, I erred in grammatical present tense when discussing Brelsau (Wroclaw). Which, according to the Treaty of Versailles and through World War II, remained German. There would have been no good argument to that point in time for its not being German.

Newton shows us where the term “Activist” came about, viz. in a disingenuous Jewish polemic of The U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren who was categorized as the representative of valiant “Activist” centrists on the court, who went beyond the “Restraint” of fellow Supreme Court Justice, Felix Frankfurter.

Hence, the masters of discourse have set the parameters of debate.

With that, Newton stealthily sets Frankfurter’s Jewish machinations into the taken for granted norm while representing Warren as a maverick - rather than as a reactionary dupe, steered by Frankfurter’s designs.

“It is a pity that Christianity, as flawed as it is from a European racial perspective, is undeniably part of the unity of north and south. We are stuck with it, for it has been too close for too long to us - and the faithful must have their faith expressions, after all.”

DanielS has expressed the constraint:

“Adding yet another knot in the tangle is the argument that with the Christian texts already being the terms in which many of our people think, the currency for two thousand years now, there must be some ontological basis beneath, and we may as well find the positive logic to it for our purposes. However, with the texts being what they are, the motivations of the texts being as convoluted, Jewish and ambiguous as they were to begin, all that winds-up happening with the deciphering of our “true” logic behind Christianity is a contribution to the mess.”

An approach offered by John Harland is to admit the historicity of Jesus in His essential mythic image as descendant of God evidenced in his own over-ruling of texts with direct bodily connection with God as Father, but to deny the historicity of the extant texts—deny them as yet another means by which dastards attempt to interpose themselves between the God-heritage of individuals and their Father, in spirit and flesh.

Ridicule of Harland’s own editing of the texts to suit his view may be conducted only at the sacrifice of the two constraints establishing the context of this presentation. Offer a superior approach if you don’t like Harland’s—either that or declare folly the entire effort to connect with the spiritual force of Christianity.

Click this link for a pdf document containing part of Harland’s account starting with “The Germans” (in the anthropological sense meaning what many identify as Celtic and Nordic pagans of the pre-Christian era), “The Catholic Church Promotes Judeo-Christianity”, “The First Breaking Apart of the Church Serpent” (regarding Henry VIII and Martin Luther), “A Further Break From the Serpent” (regarding the establishment of America), “The Strange Phenomenon of ‘Money-Mad’ Americans” (regarding the closing of the frontier and replacement of Nature and Nature’s God with money-based “culture”), “The American Dream” (the commodification, by conspirators, of the American spiritual renaissance), “The German Reich” (the parallel processes occurring in what became the nation state known as “Germany” during the 1800s leading up to WW I), “The World Picture After WW I” (the situation leading up to WW II) and the concluding section of this pdf document is “The Second World War”.

The entire book is “Word Controlled Humans” by John Harland, ISBN 0-914752-12-X available from Sovereign Press, 326 Harris Road, Rochester, WA 98579 (with which I have no business or personal relationship).